Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Discuss anything and everything related to the Transformers Live Action Films franchise, which are directed by Michael Bay. Transformers 3 is scheduled to be released on July 1st, 2011. Check out our Live Action Film section here.

In fairness to Generation 1, a substantial number of characters - and hence their designs - were derived from toys that were either straight repaints, or minor retools, of the same mold. It is therefore not surprising that the resultant character designs share significant similarity.

Additionally, the majority of characters with similar or identical designs were assigned unique and contrasting color schemes; presumably to aid in easy identification (with the presumably intentional exception of Reflector). Some were even assigned unique designs where the character's toy equivalent did not necessarily warrant such a step (Trailbreaker and Hoist for instance, or Sideswipe and Red Alert).

So really, the only instance in which confusion truly arises in the original 1984 cartoon (outside of, say, errors in the animation) is when a character with a shared design has their color scheme obscured.

Finally, I have to wonder: precisely why are we attempting to hold a Saturday morning show from almost three decades ago to the same design standards as a recent summer blockbuster trilogy with a combined budget of almost $550 million?

Evil_the_Nub wrote:Ya know what? I really liked Chromia and Arcee. In fact they're among my favorites from the RotF line. I even bought the 2 pack with that purplish Arcee and that awful Blazemaster repaint just so I could cut one of her wheels off and glue it on the arm to make Elita-1.

I liked the bikes as well! My only issue is, (ASIDE The little bonus animation in the extras) They never really combined. That may have been hasbro's call though, seeing how no matter how much we asked, we never got that third bike sister, with her own mold and the finished combiner...

JOP wrote:Finally, I have to wonder: precisely why are we attempting to hold a Saturday morning show from almost three decades ago to the same design standards as a recent summer blockbuster trilogy with a combined budget of almost $550 million?

Because this happens to be a flaw of which G1 is as guilty as the movieverse is. I think it's nice for all the fandom to realise that G1 is not flawless and the movieverse is not garbage.

Wow... So he give you examples of there differences and this is all you can say? Oh that's right. It is all you can say because no matter what evidence is put in front of you, you've never admit that you really had no issues telling robots aparts.

And as far as your color aurgument...

Nearly every TF in the movie verse minus the clones/generic decepticons were not only different colors, but different designs as well.

Megatron- Silver/black/gray/brownStarscream/Silver/grayBlackout- blue/grayBarricade- black/whiteSideways- Gray/silver (this is one that did look simuluar to barricade, but didn't have much screen time anyhow)Soundwave- Silver

Rushie wrote:

JOP wrote:Finally, I have to wonder: precisely why are we attempting to hold a Saturday morning show from almost three decades ago to the same design standards as a recent summer blockbuster trilogy with a combined budget of almost $550 million?

Because this happens to be a flaw of which G1 is as guilty as the movieverse is. I think it's nice for all the fandom to realise that G1 is not flawless and the movieverse is not garbage.

This right here!

To add to Rushies point, nearly every character had a different color than the other. Just as much, if not more color differential than in G1. That, and these characters all had unique designs (unlike recycled designs in G1). So if for some reason you still can't tell the difference between the movie characters, i might suggest getting some glasses. Either way, you can't complain that movie designs are hard to follow, and then say that G1 designs were much easier to follow because of colors since nearly each movie bot had had unique colors to them just as G1 did.

Decepticons... Com in get yo ice cream!.... And then get yo ass whop'in!!

Suck my popsicle!! :p

Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.

Rushie wrote:Because this happens to be a flaw of which G1 is as guilty as the movieverse is. I think it's nice for all the fandom to realise that G1 is not flawless and the movieverse is not garbage.

I think a quick assessment of this thread alone indicates that neither the entirety of the Transformers fandom hold the Generation 1 cartoon to be flawless; or that the movieverse is inherently garbage.

Additionally, I would point out that the debate at hand (and my chief reason for posing this question on the first place) - which version of the franchise suffers more from character design confusion - follows a false premise. Criticism of the original cartoon in no way absolves the movieverse of criticism (and that's before we even account for the questionable fairness of such a comparison). This is why I asked my question.

5150 Cruiser wrote:Just as much, if not more color differential than in G1. That, and these characters all had unique designs (unlike recycled designs in G1). So if for some reason you still can't tell the difference between the movie characters, i might suggest getting some glasses. Either way, you can't complain that movie designs are hard to follow, and then say that G1 designs were much easier to follow because of colors since nearly each movie bot had had unique colors to them just as G1 did.

I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment regarding 'color differential'; indeed, how do we determine such a thing? For instance: are we to count the number of unique colors present in a single version of the franchise? If so, the sheer number of characters present in the original cartoon, and smaller number present in the movies, would most likely sway any count in favor of the former. Perhaps we should first create a methodology for measuring color differential before we draw our conclusions?

I would also like to point out that - at least insofar as I understand these things - that much of the criticism of the movie designs relates specifically to their appearance on-screen, often in sequences containing high levels of movement and / or other visual excitement (explosions, for instance). This is an environ in which designs containing high levels of uniformly-colored detail and complexity do not, traditionally, excel. (I also believe that to a certain extent, the Generation 1 cartoon sidestepped this issue simply by virtue of its animated status.) To argue the merits of the designs outside of the context of the media in which they appear strikes me as disingenuous.

JOP wrote: Criticism of the original cartoon in no way absolves the movieverse of criticism (and that's before we even account for the questionable fairness of such a comparison). This is why I asked my question.

And your 100% right. The faults of one universe of TF doesn't merit the faults of another. BUt at the same time, one can't hold certain faults of a part of said universe, then another hold on a high pedistal for the same "faults". In this case the aurgument was the movie characters all looked the same. Problem is the same can be said in G1 in terms of design. Yes, they might have been different colors, but one can't aurgue that there designs were really that unique to each character and claim that they were ulitmatly superior to there movie counterparts. Espeacialy when there designs were unquie to each bot, as well as each idiviudal bot had there own specific color. Heack even the twins who were supposed to look alike, had key design features unquie to them. BUt that also bring me to your next point..

JOP wrote:I'm not sure I can agree with your assessment regarding 'color differential'; indeed, how do we determine such a thing? For instance: are we to count the number of unique colors present in a single version of the franchise? If so, the sheer number of characters present in the original cartoon, and smaller number present in the movies, would most likely sway any count in favor of the former. Perhaps we should first create a methodology for measuring color differential before we draw our conclusions?.

NO. I think your over thinking this. (and i don't mean this to be condencending in any way. please don't take it that way. ) Basicly i believe all thats really being said is that because G1 bots were different colors its easy to tell them apart, regardless of their designs. But the same aurgument can be used for the movie verse since they too have different colors to dishtingwish them from one another.

JOP wrote:I would also like to point out that - at least insofar as I understand these things - that much of the criticism of the movie designs relates specifically to their appearance on-screen, often in sequences containing high levels of movement and / or other visual excitement (explosions, for instance). This is an environ in which designs containing high levels of uniformly-colored detail and complexity do not, traditionally, excel. (I also believe that to a certain extent, the Generation 1 cartoon sidestepped this issue simply by virtue of its animated status.) To argue the merits of the designs outside of the context of the media in which they appear strikes me as disingenuous.

I see your point and where your going with this. But to be fair, i think Bay & Co. did a good job in trying to differentrate the bots during fighting sequences. Slowing down fight sceneces, to changing bot colors from the movie versions to the toys so they two are better dishtingwished (Baumble Bee vs. Rampage for example. Rampage was specificly made red so the audience can tell them apart better). Now granted, some scences are going to be harder to tell apart than otheres. BUt the same can be said with nearly any action movie. Personally, i've had an easier time telling apart TF in Bay's movies than many Human based war movies.

Decepticons... Com in get yo ice cream!.... And then get yo ass whop'in!!

Suck my popsicle!! :p

Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.

5150 Cruiser wrote:And your 100% right. The faults of one universe of TF doesn't merit the faults of another. But at the same time, one can't hold certain faults of a part of said universe, then another hold on a high pedestal for the same "faults". In this case the argument was the movie characters all looked the same. Problem is the same can be said in G1 in terms of design. Yes, they might have been different colors, but one can't argue that there designs were really that unique to each character and claim that they were ultimately superior to there movie counterparts. Especially when there designs were unique to each bot, as well as each individual bot had there own specific color. Heck even the twins who were supposed to look alike, had key design features unique to them. But that also bring me to your next point..

I agree; criticizing the movie design aesthetic for its visually confusing elements - while also arguing that the same is not true of the Generation 1 cartoon - would be to a certain extent hypocritical. (There may be a extenuating argument regarding the simplified art style of traditional hand-drawn animation versus the complexities of photo-realistic CGI, but that's a whole other discussion).

Having said this, I am of the impression (and I could well be mistaken) that no-one in this thread has taken the active, explicit position of "Movieverse design aesthetic is to be criticized, Generation 1 cartoon design aesthetic is not". Certainly, one might infer such a position from the current discussion - but this strikes me as dangerously close to tilting-at-windmills territory.

5150 Cruiser wrote:I see your point and where your going with this. But to be fair, i think Bay & Co. did a good job in trying to differentiate the bots during fighting sequences. Slowing down fight scenes, to changing bot colors from the movie versions to the toys so they two are better distinguished (Bumblebee vs. Rampage for example. Rampage was specifically made red so the audience can tell them apart better). Now granted, some scenes are going to be harder to tell apart than others. But the same can be said with nearly any action movie. Personally, I've had an easier time telling apart TF in Bay's movies than many Human based war movies.

Although I am of the opinion that some of the earlier fight scenes were visually confusing, I will happily acknowledge that this is something the filmmakers have attempted to address in a variety of ways during the progression of the trilogy - and in the event that there is a forth Transformers film, this trend will most likely continue. I will also agree that the simple introduction of primary colors does much to provide contrast between characters compared to, say, a war epic; although I would also point out that the extraordinary degree of movement, and ability to change size and shape, add a dimension of complexity often not present in a comparative human scene.

I though this would be interresting.Here some of the Top of my head. Optimus Prime,Jazz,Bumblebee,Roadbuster, Dino/Mirage,Sentinel Megatron,Soundwave,Starscream,The Dreads,Blackout,Sideways,Barricade,Rampage

Haha! I posted earlier in this thread but in all the discussion, never contributed to the actual topic! That being said i have to say my favorite movie design has to be Sentinel Prime. Grreat alt mode and Robot mode!

Decepticons... Com in get yo ice cream!.... And then get yo ass whop'in!!

Suck my popsicle!! :p

Shadowman wrote:I will put forth the theory that it was the internet itself trying to punch him in the face.

Optimus Prime - Yeah they played it safe but he's still awesome. I know it's sacreligious to say this but I like movieverse Optimus a lot better than any of his other incarnations. Him not being afraid to kill makes him a much better leader imo.

Bumblebee - I love him, especially with his battle helmet.

Ironhide - He's my favorite autobot design in the movie. He just looks so damn badass.I actually enjoy his design better than any of the cartoon ones.

Dark of the Moon Soundwave - I still like G1 Soundwave better, but I thought the design of the Mercedes version looked awesome.

Shockwave - My favorite dsign by far. I just wish they did more with the character.

PumpkinSwirl wrote:Optimus Prime - Yeah they played it safe but he's still awesome. I know it's sacreligious to say this but I like movieverse Optimus a lot better than any of his other incarnations. Him not being afraid to kill makes him a much better leader imo.

Bumblebee - I love him, especially with his battle helmet.

Ironhide - He's my favorite autobot design in the movie. He just looks so damn badass.I actually enjoy his design better than any of the cartoon ones.

Dark of the Moon Soundwave - I still like G1 Soundwave better, but I thought the design of the Mercedes version looked awesome.

Shockwave - My favorite dsign by far. I just wish they did more with the character.

Hasbro admitted they underestimated his importance. Let's all go cry in our beer over that one.

Evil_the_Nub wrote:That's a tough call, but I'd have to say Optimus is my favorite.

Of all the designs I thought Prime was the 'play-it-safe' character. Still an excellent design, IMO.

I think the same can be said for Bumblebee. I know, "Camaro big differnt from G1lolololo!" but for all of the 'different' toys he got, you'd think they could have maybe punched up his movie robot design a little. Prime was sort of the safe one because his deisgn is still encompassing of the things that make Prime iconic really, and looking at movie Prime you can see the evolution through all of them, all the way back to G1. BB is just one of those Decepticon clones with some yellow highlights and fluid retention issues.

I really like Brawl from the first film and Sentinal Prime. The Dreads were fairly cool as well. The Constructicons were neat, and I really liked Demolisher because he was something different without having to be like those awful Arcee clones. REALLY hated Starscream, as he's my favorite character. Made me think of Armada or Cybertron SS, where the body shape doesn't really make me think of a sleek, lethal air commander.

Now that I think about it, Ravage and Scorponok also had pretty well-defined shapes.

So those are my top 3: Shockwave, Scorponok, and Ravage.

I do not blame Michael Bay for crapping all over a huge part of my childhood. He just directed the scripts that were given to him. I blame Orci, Kurtzman, and Krueger, who seem completely incapable of concocting a story that even halfway makes sense.

RiddlerJ wrote:Each one will come with an autographed picture of Michael Bay sitting on top of a huge pile of money.

Toss up between Prime with Jetfire's armor and Sentinel Prime. Overall though I think the movie designers deserve a lot of credit for being able to make awesome robot designs with only a fixed amount of mass in each alt mode. Mass shifting, as classic a Transformers trope as it was, always irked me.

Ugh, this thread just keep coming back! I have to say, after all three movies were said and done, Sentinel Prime came out on top. He's the only transformer in the Transformers movies that gave me that feeling like I was watching G1 again. His design just screams old school, with the head crest and the beard, right down to his sleek and pointy design, complete with cape! He felt like a prime to me, he really did. Even after all he did, he still retained his personality and stature and overall look. Even in his death scene, I remember thinking "This isnt right, they should just capture him, AND Megatron for that matter!" But michael bay wanted him dead. In the original story, the Autobots and the Decepticons would team up to stop Sentinel. That obviously never happened...

I wanted to use this thread again,because i think its really never gonna be outdated.

I wanna talk about Starscream design,because i think it needs more appreciated.I think the design does a great job of making a Transformers that turn into an F-22.There have been other F-22 Transformers,but Starscream design was made with some considerations in mind,not only based on himself,but on relation to the robots.

First lets look at the size of the F-22 RaptorIts huge compared to the other vehicles,if he transformed in "Unfold legs and standing up" way he would be taller than everybody!(And we know that not the direction they were going for)

So he was designed in a way the F-22 folded into itself and spreaded the parts in other directions,making the robot mode big,without outsize the other guys.

His back has Wings coming out(A nod to his G1 design)and 2 rockets jets.Its nice detail to have,explaining how he is able to fly in robot mode.His chest is broad and wide with small wings on his shoulders.The conkpit on his chest is another reference to G1.

His arms are big and long.Some say the arms are too long,but i think if they were shorter ,if whould look like very stubby and have a very short reach.HIs bulit-in weapons are awesome,with his rocket launchers which can into a Buzzsaw!( )Its also cool how the robot mode's machine gun is the same as the Jet mode.

His legs keep the theme from rest of the body.Sharp looking.

And now,to his head:I enoy the whole Samurai helmet look he got going.Some people say he has no face.Lies!Lies i tell you!

So this was my insight on Movie Starscream.I just wanted to express to people why he is one my favorites Starscreams.